[bestbits] draft Best Bits statement on UGF 2014

Gene Kimmelman genekimmelman at gmail.com
Thu Sep 4 16:08:20 EDT 2014


I suggest we find someone who has been closely following the internal UN
discussions to address Pranesh's question.  I certainly have heard that
numerous countries have raised questions about extending the IGF, but I
don't have first hand information on that.


On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>
wrote:

> Dear Jeanette and all,
> Do we know of anyone who is opposed to:
>
>         * Renewal of the IGF's mandate for another 5/10 years? or
>         * Having an open-ended mandate for the IGF?
>
> It would be useful to know who exactly are opposed to these and why.
>
> Stephanie, you mentioned that I was "voicing concerns that we have heard
> from both govt and business".  Could you please specify which government
> delegations and which businesses / business associations you have heard
> this from?  Thanks!
>
> Regards,
> Pranesh
>
> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> [2014-09-002 23:45:35 +0200
> ]:
>
>>
>>
>> Stephanie did circulate our second version today. You should have got it.
>>
>> Meanwhile, there is a chance that some governments will also endorse it.
>> We are working on this right now.
>>
>> The statement, sort of born at the BB meeting, could become an informal
>> or formal outcome of the IGF.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> Am 02.09.14 16:55, schrieb Andrew Puddephatt:
>>
>>> can both statements - short and long be posted for approval?
>>>
>>>  *Andrew Puddephatt*
>>>> Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>>>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>>>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)7713399597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
>>>> gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org/>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2 September 2014 13:35, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org
>>> <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     On Sep 2, 2014, at 2:01 PM, joy <joy at apc.org <mailto:joy at apc.org>>
>>>     wrote:
>>>
>>>      > Dear all - just following up on the agreement at the Best Bits
>>>     meeting
>>>      > earlier this week for a statement on the IGF.
>>>      > Many thanks to those who made comments on the draft statement
>>>     which is
>>>      > in the meeting document https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y
>>>      > The draft statement has been tidied and now has a clean version
>>>     starting
>>>      > at line 325.
>>>      > Please do try to review by the end of Wednesday so that any edits
>>>     can be
>>>      > made and sent in time for a deadline of agreement of end of
>>> Thursday
>>>      > Turkey time for presentation at the IGF on Friday.
>>>
>>>     So to clarify, there are now *three* overlapping statements:
>>>
>>>     1. One from Jeanette, Stephanie and others at
>>>     https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K which is proposed to be a
>>>     *multi-stakeholder* statement on extension of the IGF.[0]
>>>
>>>     2. One at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y from line 325
>>>     which is a draft opt-in Best Bits sign-on statement on IGF extension
>>>     and other issues.[1]
>>>
>>>     3. A subset of 2, being simply the paragraph "We call for the
>>>     establishment of the IGF as a permanent multistakeholder forum
>>>     within the framework of the UN, that should be reformed and
>>>     strengthened," which has the distinction of being a *consensus*
>>>     outcome of our Best BIts meeting.
>>>
>>>     MY QUESTION:
>>>
>>>     It is clear what happens to 2 - we add it to Best Bits website for
>>>     individual endorsement as per our usual practice.  But what happens
>>>     with 1 and 3?  I suggest recording 3 on the "Outputs" tab of our
>>>     meeting page at http://bestbits.net/events/best-bits-2014.  But what
>>>     would be an appropriate way for Best Bits network members to show
>>>     support for 1 (I don't suppose we can assume it inherits the
>>>     consensus that we reached on 3)?
>>>
>>>
>>>     [0] Current full text below:
>>>
>>>     In 2005, the UN Member states asked the UN Secretary-General in the
>>>     Tunis Agenda, to convene a meeting of the new forum for
>>>     multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance
>>>     Forum (IGF). (Footnote: paragraph 72, Tunis Agenda)
>>>
>>>     The mandate of the Forum was to discuss public policy issues
>>>     relating to key elements of Internet governance, such as those
>>>     enumerated in the Tunis Agenda, in order to foster the
>>>     sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of
>>>     the Internet in developed and developing countries. The Forum was
>>>     not to replace existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or
>>>     organizations. It was intended to constitute a neutral,
>>>     non-duplicative and non-binding process, and have no involvement in
>>>     day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet.
>>>
>>>     The Tunis Agenda also asked the UN Secretary-General to examine the
>>>     desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal
>>>     consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its
>>>     creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this
>>>     regard. At its sixty-fifth session, the General Assembly decided to
>>>     extend the mandate of the IGF, underlining the need to improve the
>>>     IGF “with a view to linking it to the broader dialogue on global
>>>     Internet governance”.
>>>
>>>     In his note on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum,
>>>     the UN Secretary General confirmed that the IGF was unique and
>>>     valuable. It is a place where Governments, civil society, the
>>>     private sector and international organizations discuss important
>>>     questions of economic and social development. They share their
>>>     insights and achievements and build a common understanding of the
>>>     Internet’s great potential.
>>>
>>>     The Secretary-General recommended that
>>>     (a) That the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum be extended
>>>     for a further five years;
>>>     (b) That the desirability of continuation be considered again by
>>> Member
>>>     States within the context of a 10-year review of implementation of
>>>     the outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015;
>>>
>>>     Footnote: (General Assembly, Sixty-fifth session, Item 17 of the
>>>     preliminary list*,  Information and communications technologies for
>>>     development, Economic and Social Council, Substantive session of
>>>     2010 New York, 28 June-23 July 2010, Agenda item 13 (b)**)
>>>
>>>     The NetMundial Meeting, convened by the Government of Brazil, stated
>>>     in the NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement on April 24th, 2014,
>>>     that there is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum
>>>     (IGF). Important recommendations to that end had already been made
>>>     by the UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. The NetMundial
>>>     Statement also stated that “a strengthened IGF could better serve as
>>>     a platform for discussing both long standing and emerging issues
>>>     with a view to contributing to the identification of possible ways
>>>     to address them.”
>>>
>>>     In 2016 it  will have been ten years since the establishment of
>>>     IGF.  We , the undersigned multistakeholders, believe it has proven
>>>     its worth. (content here on why)  We think it is time to build on
>>>     the success and to strengthen the forum that the UN initiated with
>>>     the Tunis Agenda, and to give it a solid mandate and reliable
>>>     financial support. These two goals are interrelated.  To address the
>>>     need for sustainable funding, the Internet Governance Forum Support
>>>     Association (http://www.igfsa.org/) was formed at IGF 2014.  The
>>>     goal of this non-profit  is to support and promote sustainable
>>>     funding for the IGF. This funding effort as well a other existing
>>>     funding mechanisms, together with long range planning for the IGF
>>>     are essential in creating the  strengthened IGF the Internet
>>>     community needs in order to continues its work for the global
>>>     Internet development goals.
>>>
>>>     Given the significance of the Internet Governance Forum for the
>>>     continuing development of Internet governance and based on success
>>>     of the two 5 year periods of IGF operation, we request the UN
>>>     Secretary General to  establish the IGF as an ongoing  (permanent)
>>>     forum.  We believe that the IGF should move beyond its initiation
>>>     phase where repeated renewal by the UN General assembly is required
>>>     and that it be allowed to do long range planning for its continuing
>>>     and evolving work. We also request that the UN Secretary General
>>>     work with the IGF and its stakeholders to strengthen its structure
>>>     and processes in the spirit of its open and multistakeholder
>>> foundation.
>>>
>>>
>>>     [1] Current full text below:
>>>
>>>     We, the undersigned below and all members of the Best Bits Network,
>>>     re-emphasise that human rights and development are underlying
>>>     concerns  for all internet governance processes and mechanisms. At
>>>     this 2014 IGF  in Istanbul we wish to in particular call for: (and
>>>     then the specific  demands below)
>>>
>>>     1. We express serious concern about the shrinking space for freedom
>>>     of expression and access to information in Turkey, especially in
>>>     relation to internet filtering and blocking of content. Therefore
>>>     Best Bits welcomes the initiative of the Internet Ungovernance Forum
>>>     and Turkish civil society organizations to address this threat to
>>>     human rights.
>>>
>>>     2. We call for the establishment of the IGF as a permanent
>>>     multistakeholder forum within the framework of the UN, that should
>>>     be reformed and strengthened.
>>>
>>>     3. We call for a more thorough and timely review  of the IGF
>>>     post-Istanbul (rather than waiting until early 2015) in order to
>>>     look at  potential changes that could lead to its further
>>> strengthening.
>>>
>>>     4 . We support NetMundial and its recommendations for the IGF, but
>>>     express concerns about the number of new processes which civil
>>>     society is being asked to be involved outside of the IGF and call
>>>     for it to continue as the key forum for internet governance issues.
>>>
>>>     5. We commend the IGF for responding to the NETmundial roadmap by,
>>>     for example, focusing on Net neutrality and ask the MAG and UNDESA
>>>     and Brazil who is the host of the 2015 IGF to build on this, and to
>>>     use regional and national IGFs as part of this process.
>>>
>>>     6. We call for the opening up of the WSIS+10 review modalities to
>>>     ensure that stakeholders interests and views are heard and taken
>>>     into account.
>>>
>>>     --
>>>     Jeremy Malcolm
>>>     Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>>     Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>     https://eff.org
>>>     jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>>>
>>>     Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 <tel:415.436.9333%20ext%20161>
>>>
>>>     :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>>
>>>
>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
> --
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
> -------------------
> Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
> M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
> PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/c549043a/attachment.htm>


More information about the Bestbits mailing list